The 2008-09 steward elections are a good opportunity to check if we are still happy with our current stewards. To make the process as smooth as possible, here is how things are organized.

To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2009. During the 2009 elections, please mention if you are unhappy with one of the persons listed below and why. For example, you may mention inactivity or negative behaviour. Inactive stewards, as stated in the steward policies, will lose their steward access.

At the end of the elections, the current and newly elected stewards will consider complaints left on this page, and choose to remove stewardship as necessary taking into account both the comments left by community and their own perspective and understanding of the job. All stewards will go through this process after each election.

Personal info: I've been a steward since 2004 and I hope to continue being useful in this area. I also chair the Wikimedia:Advisory Board and help with Wikimania (jury and program). I'm an admin on meta, the English Wikipedia, and the advisory and foundation wikis. I haven't been as active as I'd planned to be this time last year due to spending all my spare time on planning my wedding! Since that happened (in November), I have been more active within Wikimedia generally and plan to continue this. The steward areas I focus on are changing rights and deleting cross-wiki spam (example). I'm happy to do other steward tasks as well like SUL requests and global blocks but at least in the past couple of months, there have been no requests that weren't already handled immediately by a few super-active stewards! I'm in #wikimedia-stewards if I'm on IRC and can easily be reached by email in emergencies as I'm online 16 hours a day.

Support Although not overwhelmingly active, you're doing well. Please be around more continously. :) --Thogo(talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit inactive, perhaps too much so Prodegotalk 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Agree with everyone so far, except Prodego :) ... Plus Angela's comments on the stewards-l mailing list (something non-stewards don't have visibility to... trust me it's true :) ) have been sage, and she takes feedback awesomely for someone as senior as she is. Here's hoping she can find more time to be with us this year. ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Her wedding to another wikimedian kept her busy for a while but now she is back, welcome :) ..--Cometstyles 04:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support COI - I'm also up for confirmation. She has been there since the start and is well-trusted by the community. I say keep as steward. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I have been a steward since the first election. I am also admin on fr.wiki, en.wiki, and commons as well as bureaucrat on fr.wiki. I am a founding member of Wikimedia France and a past trustee (and chair !) of Wikimedia Foundation. I currently mostly edit on fr.wiki, as well as a bit sometimes commons and fr.books (though often unloggued). And I do quite a lot at the chapter level. To be fair, my activity as steward in the past year has been low (hmmm, very low). First because as trustee, it was simply not a good idea to use these tools. And then I took a psychological break. But I'll be happy to help more in the coming year. I am usually available on irc as well for urgent needs. Cheers

COI - I'm also up for confirmation. Been plenty active as far as Wikimedia activities are concerned. She is also obviously trusted by the community and is a good person who I consider a friend. :) --Daniel Mayer (mav) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support not very active, but you never know. In case of a serious problem, we would not need any Steward to take action, but we would need Anthere to take action because she has the legitimacy to do it. Teofilo 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I was elected steward in 2006, and while I'm not as active as some other stewards in general duties, due to my role as Volunteer Coordinator for the Foundation, I still feel I have something to offer as a steward and believe I can still be trusted with the steward buttons. Thanks.

Support I think you deserve to be a permanent Steward :-D --Elijah/אליהו (Eliyahu)/إلياس (Ilyas)(Me!) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove Mr. Bass certified Poetlister sockpuppet “Cato”, thereby allowing him to become a checkuser on Wikiquote and gain access to the global checkuser mailing list.[1][2] He never answered when I asked him what steps he took to verify “Cato’s” identity,[3] instead, congratulating himself and his buddies for a job well done.[4] Amazingly, he is paid to do this; it fell to volunteers to clean up after his mess. I can hardly think of a better place to start changing Wikimedia’s culture of zero-responsibility.Proabivouac 04:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Bastique's stewardship and should be ignored here. User:Proabivouac is blocked on Meta anyway. --Thogo(talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only has this nothing to do with stewardship, but the user also apparently doesn't understand the issues they're talking about. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He displayed a silly, paranoid attitude on the Wikimedia Foundation article talk page regarding publishing anything showing the actual location of the Foundation office; treating this as a "state secret" is unbecoming of an organization supposedly priding itself on openness. Dtobias 13:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with being a steward. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I wasn't going to comment but since we have some ... er ... "interesting" opposes above, I may as well say that I think Bastique is doing a fine job as a steward and seems to be readily available for any issues that may arise. - Rjd0060 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I have been a steward since Dec 2006. I started grad school this year, which has reduced my activity a good bit. I am still about and I regularly follow the mailing list, and keep an eye out for new requests on wiki (though they are almost always done before I see them, some of the other stewards are doing too good of a job :) ). I expect to be much more active in the next few months and I will always be available for emergencies.

COI - I'm also up for confirmation. No actions in the last six months but more than 10 actions in the last year. Not technically inactive per our definition. I think we need to change our definition of inactivity after this election so everybody is aware of what is expected (simply changing and to or would suffice). But any definition change should not be applied retroactively. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

when he says that he keeps an eye out for requests but they're usually done before he sees them, it seems a little hypocritical to revoke access based on "inactivity" -- I think there's a place for more "inactive" stewards that can serve as backup. Dedicated to the projects. -- phoebe 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity is not a compelling reason to remove stewardship. We do not have a limited number of stewardship positions. Everything else is in order. I see no reason not to reconfirm. JoshuaZ 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity per a number of the above. Tools are for using. --Herbytalk thyme 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. The stewards policy considers "inactive" as no steward action in the past 6 months and less than 10 steward actions in the last year. 100 rights' change look fine to me.--Jusjih 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove taking on an advanced role means that you are actually willing to do it; your inactivity in stewardship seems to indicate you don't want it; therefore you shouldn't retain it. fr33kmant - c 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I was nominated and elected as one of the original stewards back in 2004. From mid 2004 to mid 2006 I was Wikimedia Chief Financial Officer and helped with the 2007-2008 drive. Because of that, many of my steward actions were related to fundraising drives. After the 2007-2008 drive I took a long - and much needed - wikibreak from Wikimedia activities. Since coming back in November 2008, I have helped comment on requests and set user rights on a sporadic basis due to the inconvenience of editing under one global account and performing steward actions under another. That is now fixed. If confirmed, I promise to maintain a higher level of steward activity.

Extremely inactive - you should have handed steward rights back in at the end of 2007, or when you went inactive. I'm not sure based on your activity record you'd be suited to continue. Majorlytalk 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Inactivity for a Steward is defined as "no steward action in the past 6 months and less than 10 steward actions in the last year." Most of what I've done since coming back from my Wikibreak is comment on requests and be on-call in the IRC channel, which of course is not in the user rights log. I'm back for certain now that my global account is the same as my Steward account. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll AGF that you'll be around more this year. Majorlytalk 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith that I'm telling the truth and will do what I say. :) --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I consider you to be inactive despite your showing up a few weeks before the confirmations, and I think you should be removed. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I came back from my extended Wikibreak in November 2008. Before that, I was busy editing the English Wikipedia - which was surprisingly therapeutic. :) If you like, I will place myself on permanent confirmation and thus be subject to faster recall if my activity drops again --Daniel Mayer (mav) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that mav and I had a quick conversation about this, and I concluded that my initial "remove" was correct. Thanks — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And even though I don't agree with you, I don't fault you for taking that stand. Perhaps I should have set the steward flag to my account to null before my Wikibreak. I honestly never thought my break would last as long as it did. But that is the past; I'm back now. Good luck with your own bid to become a Steward. :) --Daniel Mayer (mav) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Too inactive I think, not everything is defined by that simple definition Prodegotalk 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the recent activity, especially in regards to commenting on requests and getting feedback on IRC on those requests. I plan to maintain a similar level of activity going forward. -Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like what I see, and I'm glad you've come back. Institutional memory is another plus. I'd just ask you, if you think you're going to have to drop to completely inactive again, to seriously consider giving up your bit. But on balance I think we'd be worse off without your considerable experience and skills. Keep. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I can't make any promises if I'm hit by a bus, but if I go inactive again I will de-steward myself. Besides, I've been around since the first year of Wikipedia and was at one time super active in Wikimedia activities; wild horses could not drag me away from this completely. :) We are really changing the world for the better - who wouldn't want to help make that happen? --Daniel Mayer (mav)

He says he will be more active in the future, and has not given any indication in the past that he s anything but suitable and trustworthy. I am more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and trust that he means what he says and will follow through. -- Avi 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. The stewards policy considers "inactive" as no steward action in the past 6 months and less than 10 steward actions in the last year. 170 rights' change look fine to me.--Jusjih 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support renewed activity, willingness to serve, and more than qualified. Please stay. bastiquedemandez! 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

behold Inactivity is indeed a concern, but when a user with great experience who has proven himself trustworthy and competent wants to continue contributing as steward, I say keep and thanks for volunteering. Regards, Finn Rindahl 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirm. I have some misgivings due to this incident but as others point out above mistakes happen. My other interactions with Darkoneko have been positive. WJBscribe(talk) 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to support, as you do a lot of good work, however I would appreciate it if you could please explain why you have been using steward tools for your home wiki (fr.wiki) such as doing a Checkuser and desysoping accounts? Also I am concerned that you sysopped user:Pmartin on frwikisource when they have very active crats and sysops, and Pmartin only has 11 edits on that project. Pmartin previously raised a discussion at their discussion board, and it would have been more appropriate for the user to alert the community of the problem again, rather than it be fixed[5] and noted after the event[6]. John Vandenberg 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

The few checkusers I did were either due to emergency (large scale vandalism and no regular checkuser online) or cross wiki ones (several wiki, which make asking the local CUs of every of them very tiedous). I tend to avoid the later whenever possible.

About the desysoping, Stewards_policy#Avoid_conflicts_of_interest states that it is not a problem when it's a clear cut case (self request from aoineko last july) or emergency (sebleouf, last november), tho it's not too recommmended. Since it seems to raise a few concerns, I'll avoid doing so from now on.

PMartin is the founder of Linterweb, the company that made the search engine Wikiwix. He had previously been given global editinterface to maintain the javascript that point to that search engine. I must admit that I am not used of creating/affecting global groups, so giving him a very temporary sysop right so he could correct the bug seemed the best solution back then. Also, you have probably noticed he was given back that global right by another steward., some hours after I gave him the temp sysop.

Support About the «Sebleouf case», I'm glad DarkoNeko took upon himself to promptly de-sysop as soon as concerns arose about this account being possibly compromised. We need available and reactive stewards on the major projects. --JY Rehby 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "What's nice about simple (even simplistic) spirits, is that they are eminently predictable, and childish: barely awoken, they pop out their little poopoo." —translated by Pathoschild.

Note : Budelberger has since been banned from meta for "constant trolling". It's his latest ban in a long serie, as he was previously banned on many wikipedia for similar reasons (including harassing people he don't like on their local bot flag request). DarkoNeko 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are more active as a steward than as a bureaucrat on French wiki! If you often forget to process French wiki task, I Oppose you. but if not, I Support you to be a steward.--Kwj2772 (論) 03:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, frwiki has 4 others active stewards, so each of us hasn't that many things to do, apart discussing bordeline admin elections. DarkoNeko 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say "Care your project also" via literary expression. I'm sorry for you to understand too directly. You had good jobs!--Kwj2772 (論) 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Moral Support. The stewards policy considers "inactive" as no steward action in the past 6 months and less than 10 steward actions in the last year. 110 rights' change look fine to me, but having a statement no matter how short is better than not at all.--Jusjih 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support DerHexer is an excellent steward. — Aitias//discussion 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Keep up the great work. GlassCobra 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Active in the SWMT-area, doing a great job as a steward, also helped a lot solving account-problems and in bug-finding when SULwas introduced, thanks, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: Stats: I'm sysop at 6 or 7 wikis, checkuser on 3, been wikimedian for 5 years. As inter-wiki people know, my work these days as stewards is dealing with vandalbots and the alike. So here I'm on my 2nd confirmation to get feedback on my work as steward. Thank you for your input.

Support I'm inclined to support Drini (based on the overall good performance as steward). Nonetheless, I should say that I was dissatisfied by the way Drini handled this (I think if Drini wasn't too fast in defending Dungodung's mistake, we wouldn't see other mistakes like this ). Alefbe 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove. Due to this steward´s recent activities with capricious blocking for his friend Netito 777 of User JMundo and myself and abuse of sysop priveledges on the English Wikipedia, I have no faith that he can be trusted with any position on the projects. His mendacious mischaracterizations of what was said show a disdain for the truth and honesty.Die4Dixie 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks only serve to highlight your lack of suitability for the position. These users have a unique knowledge of your actions. Would you expect me to open a Request for comment on your actions and link to it here? Exactly what would you say was the ideal way to let people know about abusive behavior and the forum to comment on it? Perhaps leave a messgage on every user´s page on all the projects? Notifying three people of this election without suggesting what they say is hardly canvassing. I believe my friendly notification falls under [[10]]. It was sent to three people(limited number) and neutrally worded. Please explain how this is a violation of WP:CANVASS or is this another mendacious twisting of something that you cannot not know is not canvassing. If you do not understand the policy on canvassing to correctly identify it, then I realy question on more grounds you ability to serve as a steward.Die4Dixie 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with stewardship. Drini is probably one of the best stewards we've ever had. You're essentially saying you're opposing him continuing his good work because he blocked you. Canvassing to people to get them to attempt to come and sabotage this discussion in your favour hasn't helped you one bit either. Please consider your future actions more carefully. Thanks, Majorlytalk 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not familiar with meta-wiki or non-English projects but I seriously doubt Die4Dixie's incident is going to overturn anybody's candidacy for anything - the other comments are universally in support. Thus, I suggest all parties keep some decorum here and not get into wiki-arguing. I think the handling of Die4Dixie's block on English Wikipedia was unfortunate (a block for reasons poorly stated and seemingly mistaken, possibly not as a neutral party, followed by being unavailable for a day). Also, even though as Majorly points out Stewardship is very different than adminship, because of the increased authority it should be even more important that one keep a calm head, not play favorites, not get into grudges or matches with individual editors, etc. It is normal that the target of a block will be upset and make accusations, reasonable ones and otherwise, and perhaps even speak out of turn. Turning the other cheek and dealing with that in a firm but dignified way so that the blocked party can, hopefully, cool down and rejoin the editing process is also part of the job of administering blocks. The strong protest against alleged canvassing seems defensive, and piling on. Having said all that, and with all due respect to D4D and his (in my opinion) reasonable upset, I don't see this as anything to disqualify a candidate. No lasting harm done on either side, so please let it go. Wikidemon 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw sometimes Drini you yourself are soft with canvassing, so we're all to blame anyway--Vituzzu 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Per Die4Dixie, if you're going to canvass I'll make it work backwards Alexfusco5 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Without Pedro, we would need 10 more hard working stewards to replace him :) --Millosh 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove I don't question his vandal fighting work, but he lacks experience in conflict resolution. Without entering into detail about my personal case, Drini has refused to mediate after my request, 1 and defended the actions of the other party involved, 2. I hope that my posting will catch the attention of another Spanish speaking steward, any help is welcome. Thanks, --J.Mundo 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

May I just bring to your kind attention that steward's role is not meant as "super-administrator"; a Steward is not a sort of mediator, nor decides but always conforms to the relevant policies. Thank you for reading. --M/ 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Personal info: Well, I've been a steward for a year now. A quite active one, at that. Not much has changed since I was elected. My statement from roughly a year ago pretty much sums it all. Moreover, I enjoyed serving the community as a steward and hope to be able to keep contributing in the following period.

Oppose -- I didn't had intention to vote here. As things are wright now, my vote won't change the outcome of this voting. But, this edit [11] of Dungodung made me change my mind and to react, to inform others about few things. Calling an user as "major troll", just like that, is below the level of a person that is a candidate for a steward. Does he know the meaning of the word "troll"? Has Dungodung ever read the rule WP:ETIQUETTE? How can he be sure that his message [12] wasn't a kind of trolling (provoking another user's response by posting provocative messages; see wictionary: troll: A person who posts to a ... in a way intended to anger other posters... )? That message of Dungodung was unecessary. Ordinary pouring of oil on the fire. Something else was "on the table"; why had he wrote something that could distract the discussion? Why hasn't he used the word "user who is unnecessarily too cautious"? Dungodung, here're my contributions on meta [13]. You can see my voting pattern. Are you so superficial that you haven't seen that? I cannot believe it. Or your pride is so hurted by having a vote against you 2 years ago (98 "yes" and 2 "oppose")? We don't have to have acclamatory elections. Giving powers to a user is a serious thing. Taking them away is much harder thing. If a user mentions unpleasant questions and "kills the acclamation mood on the party", that doesn't make that user a troll. To make things worse, you've added [14] "major troll, who is constantly trying to obstruct the procedures"??? Do you know the meaning of the word "obstruct"? And after all these personal attacks (what about policy WP:NPA?), Dungodung continues with [15] " I cannot really judge, seeing as I'm not in the community". Then why is he messing (and throwing mud on other user) into something that he cannot really judge, as he personally admitted? What does this mean [16] "Kubura's obsessions and phobiae shouldn't be solved in this manner". Dungodung, you're a steward, bureaucrat, admin. You've forgotten how is to be the ordinary user. You don't know how it feels when a user with undeserved wiki-powers (admin, bureaucrat etc.), a user that's not eligible for those powers, makes an idiot of you and whole community. And you cannot do a damn thing, since that uneligible user is protracting any procedure (in criticism of his/hers work or a removal attempt) by tedious, foggy, "play dumb" arguments. Kubura 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

One problematic check out of how many? Majorlytalk 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. Do you find that my "inconclusive" results are not valid? You know, this was discussed among other stewards; I just did the check. --FiliP× 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly: yes, this is the problem. An experienced CU would never have done a check on such poor evidence (unless I have it completely backwards and switching my identity = sockpuppet), and as such I don't think you can be trusted Dungodung. Frankly, all the stewards could have been there "talking" but at the end of the day, you ran the check, not them. Synergy 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with DarkoNeko, any of the stewards would have taken this on. This opposition is absurd. bastiquedemandez! 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know enough details of this, but seriously, I can't imagine that any steward would run a checkuser on evidence like this without some additional information. What additional evidence did you guys look at before you ran the check? NuclearWarfare 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reaffirming the fact that I think the steward body as a whole (at least those that were active) did not research enough before running a checkuser. NuclearWarfare 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See above. Opposing Dungodung on what any steward would have done is absurd. bastiquedemandez! 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bastique, I would be fine with Dungodung retaining stewardship. But there is no other place to really register my dislike for the checkuser, so I must do so here. If only those IRC chatmasks and logs were used as the basis for running the CU, I think we need a reexamination of our checkuser policies. NuclearWarfare 00:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove. In April 2008, Dungodung checked my FaWiki ID with another user and an IP, just based on a baseless request by user:Mardetanha (see [17] for details). I had almost forgotten that incident, until I saw the comment by Synergy. It seems to me that these two examples show a pattern, rather than a sporadic non-important error. Alefbe 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay, another troll. Thanks for the opinion. --FiliP× 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: In the past year I've been more and more busy with other Wikimedia related activities behind the screens (Wikimania, Wikimedia Netherlands, Wikimedia Conference Netherlands), and therefore my activity dropped unfortunately in the past year as a steward. A part of the reasonification behind this is however too that the work is quite perfectly being done by an existing group of stewards, so that when I take a look at the todo's, there doesn't seem to be much left for me to do. Therefore, I would not have huge problems with it if my inactivity would turn out to be a problem for reconfirmation. On the other side, I hope to be able to stay available for emergencies etc, still being able to help out when needed.

The following discussion is closed: Confirmed, no objections. —Pathoschild 02:04:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Lower activity, but helping in other Wikimedia areas is a good reason for not assisting as a steward as much... Majorlytalk 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Not that active on wiki, but helping people out in IRC, a good steward, thanks, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support You're available sort of daily and very helpful. Thank you. --Thogo(talk) 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Less active than some of the others, but I see Effeitsanders around enough. A good second line steward, active enough for me. Prodegotalk 03:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Effie thinks about the things some of us overlook and always has his head in the right place. Would miss his counsel on stewards-l. Do what you can to help and that's enough for me. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: By Jimbo's request, the Board requested the creation of a founder group for Jimbo. He has been switched to that group accordingly.

I would say remove because of the silly business re. inactivity on meta, and lack of assistance as a steward. Of course, he should get this right as part of a staff group... Majorlytalk 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove as steward, add as staff if he so requests. NuclearWarfare 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You should rather be in the global staff group, which is more appropriate, since you are not active as a steward and also not regularly available on IRC. --Thogo(talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This steward, although perhaps more active in his other roles, ought to retain his stewardship. In my only interaction with him, he seemed knowledgeable and restrained. In other actions I've seen him take, and in actions he has declined to take, he seems judicious. He seems to have the best interests of the project in mind. It's hard to see why his hard work and contributions should be repaid with anything less than full-throated support. David in DC 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Full-throated support for adding "staff". Remove steward per Steward_policies#Inactivity. Wales will not lose any access, and this assignment makes much more sense. (And this is not the right forum to discuss the policies; To do so, please go to the appropriate page. ) Hillgentleman 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support for removing "steward" and adding "staff". --APPER 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo - but so much people working hard in her/his jobs here. You're not a good example as steward. So you should not be a steward. Has nothing to do with you're person as "Father of Wikimedia". But this can't count here - not since thousands of people do a lot of work. An other way is shown. Marcus Cyron 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm not sure why he should be added to the staff group because he isn't a staff, he is a board member and so he doesn't get paid. Staff members get paid and I don't think there is any member in the staff global list that is a current board member. Its better if he keeps this steward right instead.--Cometstyles 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "staff" right is designed for staffs and trustees, whoever needs it. NOt even every paid staff knows enough of MediaWiki to be able to use these tools. 220.142.9.87 05:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why Jimbo was a steward when he doesn't really use steward actions - discussion lead to the idea of steward being removed, and using the staff right. I agree to this idea, so remove steward and keep global staff. TheHelpfulOne 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure what to do here. Jimbo does take pseudo-steward actions for English Wikipedia. This wouldn't be allowed for a "normal" steward since it's his home project, however we allow it due to tradition. As well, he normally makes these actions on enwiki rather than on Meta. All in all, I don't see that Jimbo does very much for the wider community as a steward. However, he does have need to use the tools in his official capacity. I think (and I may change my mind!) that it'd be best to grant him staff access (which he should already have - I've not checked) and remove steward (but keep "Founder" access on enwiki since he has a special role for that community). I'd welcome others to poke holes in my thinking here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to be giving "Staff" to non-Staff members... I think we should rename the group to "Wikimedia" or "Foundation" with a link to the policy instead of foundation:Staff. Cbrown1023talk 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about what impression it would give if Board members are automatically given such access. Are they then moderating content? Still thinking out loud... — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly and for that reason its better if he stays in the steward group for now or we may have to come with a new global group "Board" and give them global "edit" right but not the "userrights" permission...--Cometstyles 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cbrown, That's reasonable but a name is just a name. Cometstyles, everyone can edit everywhere with er global account. We have had that "developer" flag for a long time, and it isn't really about developing the software. Mike, What do you mean by "moderating content"? Remember "stewards don't decide"? Hillgentleman 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant that giving Board members Steward-like powers might give the impression that they moderate content, which isn't the case.

I think it would muddy the situation to add him to the staff global group, actually. As long as he's doing steward-y things for enwiki he should remain as a steward. In that case, I'd prefer to have the rights assigned to the Founder group on enwiki removed so he uses Meta for desysopings etc. I think there's no real issue letting him change rights on enwiki, given his unique relationship with that community. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As above: remove and replace with staff due to inactivity. --Deon555 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Or you all could just leave the poor Jimbo alone. He's our founder, ffs. It's not important that he's inactive on the steward or whatever group. DarkoNeko 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Is there actually any reason to remove? It's never come up before; no need for it to be an issue now. —Sean Whitton / 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't do any work at all as a steward, for one. Majorlytalk 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The opposition to Jimbo Wales holding steward is boggling. Staff is not appropriate because it's strictly for paid staff of the foundation (and is generally granted and removed by me, and I have no authority over board member rights). I suggest people check their motives here. (I'm in favor of his keeping his steward rights, btw) bastiquedemandez! 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The staff flag was originally proposed as something like the steward flag, but for official uses. Since when it came to be strictly for paid staff? Thank you. Hillgentleman 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

just beacause all the WMF staff is paid :) btw, it's not completely like steward flag--Nick1915 -all you want 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In this proposal, as written, we simply add one more user group, "staff", which is given to those users who are either paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, a member of its Board of Trustees, an Officer, or are otherwise performing work on behalf of the Foundation as chosen and directed by the Board such as members of the Ombudsman commission.

Confirm. I'm not sure I see the point in the current crusade on meta to take Jimmy's flags away. Personally, I've no desire to be at the forefront of the anti-Jimbo revolution. Avruch 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support keeping Jimbo's flags. Symbolic actions have their place, but in this case the meaning would be completely unclear, the effects would be nonexistent (except perhaps for some possible nuisance depending on what Jimbo were trying to do), so what's the point? Chick Bowen 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep, but for a perhaps-odd reason: There are, between the various thick layers of procedure and bureaucracy on WMF projects, still gaping holes where situations arise from time to time that need someone to have the right combination of charisma, following, and permissions to change what needs to be changed. Perhaps at times, we've had our faith shaken, and perhaps we've grown to the point where we think that the various interactions between projects are "fine", but as a regular here, I think it's safe to say that there is a significant lack of central guidance...other than Jimbo...that keeps the various projects glued together. Perhaps in the future, he can act as little more than a figurehead with a custom, ceremonial global right that does nothing, but at this moment we're still reliant on someone capable of stepping in when needed. Kylu 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove the steward rights and add other rights (staff). The fact that Jimbo is wikipedia-co-founder is not a 'lifetime right' for the steward status, where he seems to be quite inactive. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As a relatively new member of the community: (1) I assume Mr. Wales has legitimate reason(s) for having the steward bit turned on. (2) There are cases where the why should not be articulated (e.g., some matters of security, but not limited to those). (3) It is my understanding we would not be discussing any of this if Mr. Wales had not performed the role he has performed, and therefore he has unlimited "credits" with respect to labors performed. (i.e., See #1) Proofreader77 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Obiously remove as a steward per blatant inactivity. Get the rights if you need them, give them back if you don't. There is no "he's Jimbo" exception. guillom 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo does some pseudo-steward things on enwiki no? I seem to recall he has removed admins for example. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is part of his "founder" (i.e. local steward) status. If the local en.wikipedia community tolerates Jimbo Wales's "benevolent dictatorship", fine for them. But his actions there (such as removing admins) cannot be considered as steward tasks; otherwise he would summarily lose his stewardship as a blatant violation of the steward policies (including Don't decide and Avoid conflicts of interest). guillom 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that in my comments above. A failure to recognize Jimmy's special relationship with (only) the English Wikipedia is just that: a failure. As long as he is doing that sort of thing for enwiki, I am comfortable with him staying on as a Steward (though I would prefer that such actions be taken on Meta). — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Support for a gratuitous slap in Jimbo's face suggests the ultimate elevation of process over substance. It also suggests a level of cluelessness best captured by humorist Dave Barry when he once wrote of someone "[h]e couldn't find a clue if he was in the middle of a field of clues, during clue rutting season, doused in clue pheromones". I'm just sayin'. David in DC 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER: That's not a Dave Barry quote. DS 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove If he wants to help out, he can try his hand at editing. These privileges for Jimbo serve only to bolster his ego and do nothing to benefit the project. Everyking 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove I don't think that the Board members should have steward rights. Besides that, no expressed will (statement) to stay between stewards. If he needs steward rights for presentation purposes, I don't think that there will be any issue to give those rights to him temporary. But, again, he should express what does he want or need. --Millosh 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep - the "remove Jimbo's rights" movement we've occasionally seen just strikes me as egotistical and pointless. If Jimbo needs a flag to do something, he is going to have it and removing it just for the sake of doing so is pointless. --B 14:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

remove; maybe set a special global group just for him, whatever. --FiliP× 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Personal info: I’ve been a steward since the beginning of 2006. I have not been as active as I would like the past year, due to a combination of other (newer) stewards being very efficient, and being busy with other obligations (both on and off wiki). I would, however, like to continue, and hopefully become more active than I have been lately.

Jon Harald Søby is a very good steward. Currently, JHS is the only one who speaks scandinavian languages. Therefore, JHS should absolutely continue to be steward. Calandrella 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I became a steward after the December 2007 election with very wide supports. I am an administrator on Meta, Wikimedia Commons (also bureaucrat), Multilingual Wikisource, English Wikisource, Chinese Wikisource (also bureaucrat), English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, Chinese Wiktionary (also bureaucrat), English Wikiquote (also checkuser), Chinese Wikiquote (also bureaucrat). Being an administrator on 11 Wikimedia sites plus non-Wikimedia Wikilivres:, including being a bureaucrat on 4 Wikimedia sites and a checkuser on 1 Wikimedia site, is very busy, but I like to serve fellow users as much as I can and I am willing to continue serving. I am mostly active on Chinese Wikisource, but I also normally visit other sites with my administrator flag at least once a week. Right here on Meta, my most applied steward task is to promote new bots, but sometimes I also check Steward requests/Checkuser.

I think I'd prefer Jusjih to be removed. I don't believe he understands fully what the job is for (i.e. not for assisting with Commons work). Besides, he's made barely any rights changes at all, compared to some. Majorlytalk 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do take a look at Global deleted image review: "Commons administrators have dealt with the need to evaluate deleted image pages on multiple wikis in a number of ways:" "Asking stewards to grant temporary adminship on other wikis, which potentially may feel like an infringement of the local community. The steward policy is silent on if this is a legitimate use of the tools, in particular when users who are both Commons admins and stewards give themselves temporary adminship on other wikis." This problem already existed when I became a steward. When I was not fully sure, I did try to ask other senior stewards first before any actions until you came to my talk page on 2008-02-04 with possibly unfriendly tone to raise your objection. When I tried to asked Rdsmith4 again, you seemed to follow my tail and gave persuasive talk that would solve nothing [18]. On 2008-03-27, I started "Requesting helps from local Wiki sysops or bureaucrats with language barriers" to express my concerns. Since you moved it to Requesting help from local Wiki sysops or bureaucrats with language barriers, I suppose that you may have read it somewhat. When your adminship here was to be confirmed on 2008-04-01, I started a comment about w:Wikipedia:BITE and w:WP:AGF, as suggested by RfA Candidate's Song, you were unsure [19]. I neither supported nor opposed your continued adminship here, and you should consider it a courtesy better than opposing. On 2008-06-04, I started Global deleted image review to hopefully solve the radical problem. This time, What exactly do you mean "I don't believe he understands fully what the job is for". After all, I never intend to knowingly and willfully violate steward policies that have gray zones. I hope that you understand everything better, including w:Wikipedia:BITE and w:WP:AGF, as suggested by RfA Candidate's Song. Thanks.--Jusjih 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE is for newcomers, not for seasoned regular editors. I think if you had opposed me, because I pointed out your misuse of steward tools, would have been incredibly petty. Majorlytalk 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been talking to someone about this and my position is firmly to remove as a steward. Far too inactive and not as interested for my liking, and the above speech demonstrates a lack of clue: what does the RFA song have to do with anything, and why would a lack of an oppose be a "courtesy"? Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about there, but it sounds rather poorly thought out and confused. I'm sorry. Majorlytalk 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, cool down a bit. Jusjih came across as a thoughtful and serious person in Chinese wikisource. I think he is from Taiwan where there is a linguistic and cultural norm different to that of England. Try to understand each other instead of talking over each other. Or maybe we can turn the whole thing around around and Majorly can try to use Chinese in this discussion and see how it goes.:-) Hillgentleman 05:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to do much of anything? Perhaps remove? Prodegotalk 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Majorly, he made more self rights changes for his work related to his homewiki than any other steward which he shouldn't have done and basically we expected much more from him :( ..--Cometstyles 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment to Majorly above. I consider the past problem due to technical inefficiency, not due to knowing and willful errors.--Jusjih 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove, I think; stewards are supposed to steer clear of their home wiki. Stifle 14:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[20] suggests English Wikipedia to be my home wiki where I do not apply steward tasks as many other users already do locally.

I would like to say that the Stewards policy is not always clear as I do try to assume good faith. For example, what exactly are home wikis? There are gray zones. How active do you really want while ""Inactive" means no steward action in the past 6 months and less than 10 steward actions in the last year."--Jusjih 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are too spread-out to give the steward tools and tasks the attention they deserve. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After the tit-for-tat attitude shown above and reiterated in private correspondence, I do not support keeping Jusjih as a steward. Just a reaffirmation of my prior opinion - there are two strong reasons now. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support to confirm, -jkb- 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)- - - Reasons (added): It is not only because of the language preferences of Jusjih, which are pretty important. I know Jusjih since about 2005 from the work in the Wikisources (namely Oldwikisource) where he is doing a quite important job and he should make it in the future also with the flag of a steward. Might be - like Hillgentleman says - he is a bit unorthodox, but he knows what he is doing. -jkb- 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I confirm. because of linguistic problems. Users using Chinese or its variants, Japanese, Korean are over 500,000. but only has 1 stewards. I won't accept stewards are all Germanic or Romance language speaker.--Kwj2772 13:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Seems active enough to me and I'm sure what is said above will be taken into consideration by Jusjih. Kwj2772 also makes an excellent point; we need more Stewards, not fewer, with the language proficiency that Jusjih has. COI - I'm also up for confirmation. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep The arguments in favor of removing fail to address the need to have stewards able to navigate Asian writing. I also agree with Mav, above, we need more Stewards, not fewer. bastiquedemandez! 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The steward team would suffer if there is no steward on hand who knows Chinese characters. I think Jusjih's way of using steward tools is unorthodox. My questions to Jusjih are whether what he did could have been done without the steward tools, and if so, is it a lot or a little more cumbersome; and did he violate any local policy in the process. Hillgentleman 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I became a steward after the December 2007 election. I also hold admin rights on en:wp, Commons, and Meta (I gave it up on en:ws), 'crat on commons and meta, CU on en:wp, commons and meta, and oversight on Commons. I am one of the folk that handle access to the CU and Steward mailing lists as well. I think I've been fairly active at the various steward tasks, and I have plans to continue doing so. I welcome your feedback.

Well, all of us stewards are. I'm not sure I'm going to go put COI on all my comments but I guess maybe we should? I hope it goes without saying though. Interested in what people think, maybe take comments to talk? (Talk:Stewards/confirm) I will gladly add that to my comments if people think it necessary. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even a second of hesitation about keeping him as a steward. EVula// talk // ☯ // 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It feels great knowing some people do care keeping an eye on certain things within this enormous desert called the internet. Full support from an eternal newbe! Galoubet 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the note above that this steward suffers from an excess of "Larness". Furthermore, the steward seems to be suffering from a constant state of nonasciiemoticonaphobia, which manifests itself in near-panicked reactions to the presence of graphical mood indicators such as or . However, notwithstanding, and despite, such formidable obstacles, this steward slogs forward and braves the frightening chaos of wikispace with steadfast determination. In other words, BooYah! -- Avi 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I don't always agree with Lar's wikipolitics. In fact, when we interact it's usually when we disagree. But nothing he's said or done or had said about him has eroded my faith in his integrity, decency and trustworthiness. Not even a bit. --JayHenry 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - very helpful and active. John Vandenberg 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove Long term pattern of inappropriate behavior (conduct unbecoming).[21] I’m hoping that Lar will gracefully resign from all positions of trust across Wikimedia projects.Proabivouac 12:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Making accusations without evidence is inappropriate and unethical. Cla68 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The public presentation of evidence would likely prove very controversial. In addition to what I have the go-ahead to publish, many people have spoken to me off the record. That said, if Lar wishes the evidence to be openly discussed, nothing prevents him from requesting it.Proabivouac 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Larry himself is not adverse to making accusations with unspecified "evidence". I think Pedro pretty much nailed it - "untrustworthy and two faced".

Comment, since I can'tSupport again. re: User:Proabivouac — who should peddle this trash elsewhere (WR links as evidence? what malarkey)This is pure trolling and this is going end with a block as on en:wp, so why fret? Lar is one of the best on all the WMF sites, as many are saying above. I've met Josette (here) — I'd trust her as a steward, too, were she interested. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Jack Merridew, If I or anyone else is blocked for blowing the whistle on this kind of thing, rest assured that this won't be the end of it. The evidence of an institutional cover-up is mounting.

Again, again, if Lar wishes a public presentation of the evidence, he and any of his defenders, including you, are free to say so.

What I'm hearing instead is, "You've presented no evidence, and if you try to present any, it will be blanked and oversighted, and you'll be blocked, as on en.wp." Well, no doubt. That's the way you play it nowadays.

Female volunteers have described a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances on the part of one of Wikipedia's senior functionaries. That's serious business, and if you can't recognize it as such, you've no business in this discussion.Proabivouac 10:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, not one poster to this page seems interested in learning what the evidence actually is. Clearly, the "community" cannot be trusted to make a responsible and informed decision. Here, we're looking at women being met with vulgar and unwelcome sexual advances, and all we hear is, "he's done some other useful things" (things that anyone with his toolset could have done)

Where are you, Lar? Hiding, it seems - we know you've seen this discussion, so speak up.Proabivouac 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Has done good work, no reason to remove the tools. Tiptoetytalk 00:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support An absolutely great steward. Mifter 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Recuse While the hints and allegations are disturbing, no evidence has been presented for scholarly peer review. As Lar well knows, WikiCulture does not embrace Due Process, and it is customary to trash someone's standing or reputation by blithely posting a haphazard theory of mind. —Moulton 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to comment because you are indefinitely blocked on Meta, and not logged in. (That doesn't matter much since your comment is still visible, of course, but struck comments will be removed if many ineligible users abuse that fact.) —Pathoschild 15:49:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: Bureaucrat on meta.wiki, sysop on it.wiki and on simple.wiki, I'm pleased to give a hand for Wikimedia general housekeeping as well. Sometimes I help with translations and OTRS cleaning up. I was one of the founder members of Wikimedia Italia.

Although you are not so frequently available on IRC (AFAIK), you are doing a good job. Thank you! --Thogo(talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Active enough for me & does a very good job with the steward tools. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the weirdest steward we have on wikimedia as he always shows up when you least expect him too..very useful against trolls and also does a good job with permissions ..--Cometstyles 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing an ok job. Not terribly active, but no reason to remove. Prodegotalk 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of weirdness as a reason to keep, and coming from Cometstyles I'm not sure what to think! :) Another steward whose counsel I value. Would be a loss if he did not continue. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: Last couple of months I reduced my activities as a steward because of my other Wikimedian duties (NomCom, ChapCom, LangCom as well as some other organizational issues). However, whenever I am able, I am online at #wikimedia-stewards channel and ready to handle requests. Usually, I am trying to cover tasks which are not so regularly covered, like keeping night shifts (early morning in Europe and night in Americas) is. I am giving my mandate to the community: if there are at least 30 votes in favor of removing my steward rights and 50%+1 majority, I will resign.

Activity is lacking, but assistance in other Wikimedia areas makes up for it. Majorlytalk 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty much satisfied with my interaction with this steward.--Yaroslav Blanter 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Highly dissatisfied with millosh's conduct here. Stewards should defiantly not have the attitude of dismissing the opinions of an entire wiki. It isn't so much related to steward duties or tasks, but a general attitude I don't want to see again in any steward. Prodegotalk 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a little odd, I agree. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the proposal the global admin role wasn't going to apply on en.wikipedia, ergo only users on wikis where the proposal would apply should get to decide on it, I suppose was the thought? --Jorunn 04:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite Prodego's valid concern, on balance I have a great deal of respect for Millosh. He's worked hard (often behind the scenes where only other stewards would see) in some very sticky situations this year that required grace and finesse. I think the work done on fa:wp ([22]) was remarkable. That was a bad situation that would not have been resolved without Millosh's proactive work. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not very active on the tech side, but great mediator, the "issues solver" :) Sure, confirm!--Nick1915 -all you want 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Prodego - that was a totally ludicrous thing to say, and I'm sure a great many users lost respect for Millosh as a result. However, he was not alone in doing ludicrous things in that situation, and I do take that into consideration. On balance, I still believe that his contributions as a steward are beneficial for the community. Generally, his work is good, and he is active. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Miloš is devoted Wikimedian. He did lot for Wikimedia Serbia and Wikimedia projects in Serbian. If he did something wrong, I'm sure that he had the best intentions.--BokicaK 05:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2- Millosh has been very active in persuading Serbo-Croatian Wikipedians (who are not familiar with user:Mardetanha at all) to vote for him (see this). Many Serbo-croatian users who have voted don't have any contact with any of projects related to Mardetanha and many of them have voted only for Mardetanha or Mardetanha and SpeedyGonzales (who is from Croatian Wikipedia). It seems that Millosh justifies this worst kind of canvassing (i.e. asking your friends to vote for someone that they don't know) as a "poltical solution" to the problem of '"malicious persons" being able to "obstruct processes".

3- In his comment in response to User:Pastorals2007, Millosh refers to the concerns about Mardetanha's sysop performance in Persian Wikipedia and the possiblity of the future abuse of check-user right and Mardetanha's intention as "obstructing the election process" by "malicious persons". Those persons (who have voiced these concerns) include user:Taranet and user:Raamin who are both sysop in Persian Wikipedia and User:Mostafazizi (who is the main contributor of most of the featured articles of Persian Wikipedia) and user:Huji (a sysop in MetaWiki who is active in Persian Wikipedia and was a sysop there, but resigned volunteerly) and many others. This kind of comment (in refering to those concerns) is just utter arrogance, and is not acceptable for someone with steward access.Alefbe 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, I don't think that Huji and Raamin are malicious persons. I think that you are a malicious person. --Millosh 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I'm bureaucrat here on meta, on vec.wiki and on it.wikt, member of SWMT. I became a steward after the December 2007 election. I try to help everywhere I can, I'm often available on IRC, happy to give a hand on permissions queue on meta. Lately, I've been little busy with "real life", but I'm ready to keep working!

Thank you. Why "attacked"? First, Wikimedia invites "you can also comment on current stewards". Second, everyone can check that, just few days ago, you wrote and signed the insult "dementi" (i.e. "affected by dementia"). Last, the only answer to your insult has been "non è un linguaggio da steward" (i.e. "a steward shouldn't use this language"). --Dragonòt 08:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It's almost impossible having all the trolls scratched off your back when you are their worst nightmare! But your valuable wikiwork is what really witnesses your importance here aws a steward. You can count on my support! - εΔω 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: "assume good faith" could rather mean "trustworthy people who have after a time become less active can use their extra tools even when used very sparingly" it will lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in a group with certain rights. nobody of course "needs" such tools, i do not "need" such tools, except to now and then perform a freely chosen job or task. demotion (please remove this guy) rather may make people be a stranger, whereas in my philosophy extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki; after all, at least here, we are *not* competing for lots of soil. oscar 12:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Oscar's statement in principle though... I'm not sure why a still-trusted member of the community (former board member, etc) should automatically lose their tools because of a period of inactivity. phoebe 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I do too, Phoebe, well said... I am sympathetic to those who want complete or near complete inactivity to be a gate, and yet, if Oscar is not reconfirmed, we will miss his counsel. We have had 2 stewards already decide to stand down, which saddens me, and yet also fills me with respect for their putting the desires of the community above their own, as a good steward should. I think if, in the end, the community decides they do not want the rest of us benefiting from Oscar's comments, he too will put that desire first, above his own. But I hope he is reconfirmed, so mark me in the keep column. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to have Oscar stay as steward b/c of his Wikimedia experience and language ability. I'd just like to be exposed to that experience and ability more often. :) COI - I'm also up for confirmation. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need the steward tools to talk. The steward tools are intended to be used. 220.142.9.239 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please log in to comment if you would be so kind. Since this is a discussion, and is input to the stewards, who will decide this matter, it's not like the stewards won't take your words into account when evaluating what to do, but it's polite. As for talking, you are correct. However, as a note, being a steward is required for access to the steward mailing list, or access to the stewards private IRC channel, because of the sensitive nature of much of what is discussed. Much discussion occurs in those two places and we would lose the opportunity to hear Oscar's counsel there if he was not a steward. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Was considering what I thought of this and then noted what Phoebe had to say. And I agree. —Sean Whitton / 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - after reading your personal commentary: support, if you want this Oscar. I know you're not the authoritarian type, you will know when the time comes to step down. —unsigned by Woudloper on 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Oppose - He doesn't seem to know anymore what he is doing now - Quistnix 15:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Completely agree with Oscar's statement. Furthermore, Oscar has had a very difficult year as mentor to a very troublesome user on nl-wiki, who even threatened to press legal charges against him. ArbCom fully supported Oscar's actions (for the record). I'd say that he deserves some time off and I'm confident that he will come out of this phase even better and wiser. Full support. Errabee 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: Bureaucrat on it:wp, founder member and former president of the Italian chapter. I haven't been very active in the community during the last year, both as a steward and on my "home" wiki. I leave the decision about keeping my steward flag to the community.

Support Pathoschild is an excellent steward. — Aitias//discussion 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Doing a great job as a steward, always ready to help! thanks! --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support As a small wiki user, I watch the steward's activity on a regular basis. Definite support.--Yaroslav Blanter 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Thank you for all your help at any time! --Thogo(talk) 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Support - extremely lazy but useful when he isn't dozing off :) ..--Cometstyles 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Pathoschild is helpful and has been around forever; at least forever from my point of view. :) Great steward. Prodegotalk 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

His lazy is some other peoples whirling dervish of hyperproductivity. Where would we BE without all his toolsmithing? Makes the work of every steward easier, he does. Needs to dump that loser girlfriend of his though, she is too bossy. And wear some bright colors once in a while. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2 February at 10:35 (UTC), Pathoschild feels the need to place a permalink towards Schiste's initial vote, which uses the template created four minutes before by Pathoschild: diff;

Question: are we, with the steward confirmation votes, in a playground? I certainly have that impression. Sorry, but I have no confidence in those people who amuse themselves with these silly childish games." —translated by Pathoschild.

Translation: "Hello Hégésippe. I created the template humourously during a discussion in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect, expecting to delete it shortly without use. Schiste did use it, but his comment was later refactored. Since this refactoring changed the entire meaning of his comment (from humourous non-oppose to real oppose), I noted the refactoring.I think some restrained playfulness is necessary in all stewards; otherwise one quickly succumbs to the stress that affects many other contributors. However, I had no expectation that the template would be used at all, nor that it would remain once it was." —translated by Pathoschild.

Personal info: While the logs make it look as though I'm somewhat inactive, in fact I make myself available on IRC on a very regular basis and respond as necessary to requests of various kinds, not all of which result in user rights changes. I have contributed extensively to the documentation and policies relating to stewards, and have periodically introduced formatting changes, minor and major, to ensure the continued efficient functioning of SR/P (formerly RFP). My extra-Wikimedia commitments make it somewhat unlikely that my log-evidenced activity will rise much in the next year, but this does not mean I am absent from Meta -- it only means I am rarely the first one to jump on a new request. I intend to maintain my regular presence on IRC, and if confirmed I will continue to perform steward tasks at every opportunity. — Dan

Fine for me, though could be a tad more active. Majorlytalk 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does good work, but I agree I'd like to see more of it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'll note that the suggestion that transferring rights from one account to another is inappropriate is a tad silly, IMO. The point of stewards not changing rights (etc) on their home wiki is to prevent a conflict of interest. Since essentially nothing changed in this case, there can be no conflict of interest. If he had promoted someone to sysop who wasn't previously, we might have something worth talking about. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really active, but not inactive enough to remove, does a good job when around. Prodegotalk 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

150 right changes in 2 years is tad too low but is generally around all the time, has my trust :) ..confirm..--Cometstyles 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All promotions should be done on the local wiki. It's a minor point, but it's an important one that dates back to the beginning of stewardship. --MZMcBride 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

MZM: This was not a new promotion but a transfer of rights. I seem to remember I decided to do both rights changes at Meta so as to keep them in the same log, hoping that this would minimize confusion and not give the impression that it was an unwarranted new promotion. I figured this consideration was more important than the convention that all promotions must be done locally. It seems to me that the relevant principle here is that stewards shouldn't grant sysop flags on wikis that have local bureaucrats; but I'm also a bureaucrat at en.wiki, so that problem is neutralized.

But I think John was suggesting that I shouldn't be changing rights on en.wiki from Meta at all, since that's my home project. To this I can only respond that (1) I was executing a request made by the user, and not making any decisions of my own, so there is no possibility of conflicting interests; and (2) my actions caused no controversy nor provoked any objections whatsoever, precisely because I was doing no more than executing a request. I have argued for quite a while that the old prohibition on stewards changing rights on their home wikis is unnecessary in cases that involve no active decision-making. In fact, this is why we agreed a while back to change the relevant section of the policy to read "... except for clearcut cases (such as self-requested removal or emergencies)". — Dan | talk 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this and further will say that I've done the very same thing. I don't think clear cut, non controversial items like this are problematic... a shift is not a promotion. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where could I go about attempting to change the policy that says admins can uncontroversially have their adminship transferred to a new account without any sort of on wiki record or process for this? I'm frustrated by secret adminship transfers (there are a handful of en.wiki admins who can't be traced to an RFA at all) and would like to at least express my opinion against this anti-transparent practice. --JayHenry 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Either individual wikis (every "completely untraceable" one on en:wp that I am aware of (because the transfer didn't happen as a matched pair here) was done with awareness of en:wp ArbCom) to address it wiki by wiki, or perhaps the talk page for Steward policies, here. There is no way to escape an onwiki record (without developer intervention) in the case of a rights transfer... you'll always find record of the removal half it in the user rights log here. (But I think you mean something a bit more formal/direct/explicit than just a log entry) Further, doing both halves of the transfer here (turn off and turn on) means it's a bit easier to track, at least in my view, than if one half is done here (the turn off) and the other half elsewhere, because you can see what was done and it's paired. You have to know to come here to find it, of course. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant an on en.wiki record, and I'm certainly not sure where Arbcom derived the authority to grant secret adminship transfers. (I became aware of this secret transfer issue when I noticed a complete spookadmin engaging in behavior I felt was harassment of someone I was trying to work with. Where can an editor like myself even begin to set that straight? Certainly not with ArbCom 2007-08 which felt entitled to create spookadmins in the first place.) But my point is actually a bit broader. It seems to me there are only two scenarios, either 1) if an admin asks a Steward to transfer their admin rights to some other account, this is permitted without condition (and I see no evidence this has ever been any sort of supported ideal) or 2) Dan did make a decision of his own. --JayHenry 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dan is correct in assuming I am mostly concerned about this action being done by a steward on their home wiki. This was not a clearcut case as it isnt supported by enwiki policy or common practise. The request should have been posted onto meta, with explanation and justification, and evaluated by another steward who is not active in enwiki. At least then there would be an opportunity for community discussion, and an unbiased decision maker. You did "decide" that the request was appropriate and did not need any community discussion. John Vandenberg 08:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Bish is hardly the first person to deal with bit transfers. Ocee and H both dealt with similar things. --MZMcBride 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly aware of the problem of transparency; in fact, I asked the user in question to announce the change openly on her userpage (which she did, though the page is now deleted; for what it's worth, the revision is [23]). Had she not wished to do so, I would not have granted the request. I further informed her that if there were any objections I would reverse the change. I took my action to be validated by the fact that no objections ever came to my attention (until this moment of course). And when secrecy is not an issue, a transfer of rights seems to me just the kind of mere formality that stewards are accustomed to handle.

If it turns out that an agreement now emerges that this sort of thing should not be done, then we will know for sure not to do it in the future, and I will naturally abide by that decision. But at the time I did the transfer, and apparently for eleven months afterward, it seems not to have been understood as problematic in any way. And if it can be argued that on some understanding what I did amounted to a "judgment" or a "decision", then it was no more than the minimal amount of judgment or decision that is involved in any steward action -- if a steward really were to make no decisions at all, he or she would do exactly nothing. With respect, I believe that my actions were appropriate to the state of opinion at the time, and I hope they will not be held against me if and when the state of opinion begins to change. — Dan | talk 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's well said and I don't think at all that you should be removed as a Steward. But going forward I'd like to discourage the practice of blithely shifting adminship from one account to another. It is not silly; the shifting is confusing (not to mention frustrating and even unfair to all the outsiders), makes it difficult to find the RFA, a deleted user page is a pretty tough barrier to get past for an ordinary editor, it breaks the log of admin actions in half, not to mention the actual editing contributions, etc. Another point, Dan, is that while I'm hardly a noob I was unable to figure out who gave Bishzilla adminship rights. I don't know how to navigate around the logs that well. Personally I like Bish, and my concern has nothing to do with her. It's that what happened was completely opaque. --JayHenry 05:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support the user rights change was not any sort of COI--should not be taken as any kind of abuse. It might should have been logged differently but I see no problem with the situation. bastiquedemandez! 18:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep - He's available, knowledgeable, and (as long as we keep him about) capable of doing what needs be done. I'd be happier if he'd do promotions with local abilities, but I understand his rationale as given. Kylu 04:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Has responded with equanimity to the fairly difficult line of questioning above. Dan has demonstrated, in my opinion, the right temperament and sound judgment needed for the role.--JayHenry 05:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I don't come from his home wiki, but at my home wiki (enwikiquote) he didn't understand the principle no steward without local community request are invited to use bits, specially if there are local bureaucrats and they have their own request process. He used a bit instead just being asked by someone on IRC who didn't want to comply with the local request procedure. Since his statement stewards are allowed to use bits when they think it fine and petty regardless how the local community thinks and self-efficient, and no signal he has changed his mind, I am against that he continues. It is not personal but from disagreement in principle. --Aphaia 00:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: As it is obvious from the logs, I had a somewhat extended leave of absence recently. This was not limited to my activities as Steward. I was absent from all projects, including my home wiki and other projects to which I do work with atl least some degree of regularity. I have, as of December, begun returning to activities. I will take this opportunity to say here what I said to my local community on my home wiki: I do apologize to the community for my absence, but I really was overwhelmed by my off-wiki life. But of course, the community expects me to be available to use the tools entrusted to me whenever it may be required, which I fully intend to continue to do. In my normal activities, I am usually more present with regards to user permissions and oversight.

Personal info: I am not one of the most active stewards (I'm always busy with school), but I am always available in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect to help users and handle emergencies, and I work on the occasional miscellaneous task (like the transition of wiki-is-locked messages to local site notices, after locking was changed to a permissions-based method). I would like to continue doing so. See my user page for my other contributions.

Shanel's kind and helpful, and a good steward. Needs to dump that loser boyfriend of hers though, he never does anything useful. Plus he lets her boss him around. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have no chance to survive. Make your time.--Shanel 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shannie is a bit bossy, but she is lovable and hard working and keeps pathos on his toes or he would be slacking off somewhere...hard worker..confirm..--Cometstyles 04:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Removed during the elections. —Pathoschild 02:18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that should Shizhao wish to resume his steward role after his term of ombudsman is up, he should need only go through the reconfirmation process, and not an entire election. bastiquedemandez! 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

@Bastique, the reconfirmation should be done now, not in one year, when nobody remembers him anymore. @Shizhao, sorry, but I think you are too much involved into steward activity like checkusering on zhwiki, which is your home wiki. Additionally, you were not available on IRC during the last year, at least not that I knew of. --Thogo(talk) 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thogo, To use or not to use irc is a personal choice. You should have no problem contacting Shizhao; he is active on meta and on Chinese wikiversity. Hillgentleman 10:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thogo, I don't think it should be tolerated that a steward does checks on his home wiki, best regards, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 02:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spacebirdy, As your probably know, the matter has been addressed on the appropriate Requests for comments/Shizhao's use of steward privilages page. Chinese wikipedia is a large wikipedia with plenty of vandals and trolls but at the same time it suffers from not being able to elect any checkuser, for the unique political situation in the Chinese speaking world. Please bear that in mind, Thogo and Spacebirdy - Shizhao was simply doing his duty; since, apart from Shizhao and Jusjih, no other steward has sufficient knowledge of Chinese; and however capable you are, as I have seen, you simply cannot provide support as efficiently as Shizhao did. Shizhao is aware of the checkuser policy; but in certain cases, the community waited for over a week for urgent CU-requests. Hillgentleman 10:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the community did not have to wait for urgent cases this year. They did simply not put it on the requestpage if that was so. Also besides the requestpage there is #wikimedia-stewardsconnect for urgent requests where always many stewards are available, also those who do not watch the requestpages so closely, but are eager to help, and he knows of that channel and Shizaho could have easily passed it on to a steward of his trust and assisted with understanding the request in translating. The rfc does not interest me, I waited for the confirmation where I can put my objection, because this is the place to do that. I am sorry, but I don't think that this should have happened, exactly for the reason why there are no local checkusers on zh.wiki. And that he understands the local language and others not does not count, there are many other languages no steward speaks, but the others managed to ask someone to translate an edit for them etc... Best regards, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, few Chinese wikipedians use irc. Surprised? They use skype or emails much more. And I appreciate that you at least acknowlege there exists a prior discussion. It is rather hasty to say "he understands the local language and others not does not count"; You need to know the language to understand the problem efficiently. As you know, the log goes stale in 7 days; and I have seen precious time wasted when the Wikipedians tried to explain to the stewards their problems with their good intentions but no-so-good command in English. Chinese wikipedia is maintained by a relatively small number of wikipedians but it invites a large number of vandals, some quite serious. And they are not helped by anti-vandal bots. An For the rest, I have said enough before. Hillgentleman 12:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that Chinese Wikipedians should use IRC, but Shizaho can, or he could have used the mailinglist and asked anyone for using skype... But he did not, he checked himself and I object to that. It is not even clear why all these accounts were checked, no reason were given. Also it is not hasty to say that, we have to do checks in other languages as well, as said. And we ask for translations of edits then, or a trusted sysop for the problems and situation. There is this rule not to do that in Your home project, either we stick to the rules or You can propose to change that. You can have another opinion and express it and I respect that, but You will have to respect my opinion too, thanks, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problems; I understand Your point, and I agree with Your principles. I just wanted to bring out the fact that the case is not as simply black-and-white as a casual reader may think. Hillgentleman 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the RFC, performing CU requests on one's home wiki is to be avoided and I expect that will be in the future. I'm somewhat alarmed to see Spacebirdy say that there were no reasons given for running the check - I thought the requests that were being done were at least listed on SRCU and had valid reasons, as Wing stated. That Shizhao is now on the Ombudsman Commission is a bit uncomfortable at present... I'd appreciate some clarity from anyone who can provide it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

StrongSupport. We both as only Chinese stewards administer many Chinese wikis very well. We cannot find at least two Chinese Wikipedians interested in checking users locally.--Jusjih 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

COI I'm also up for confirmation. I've met SJ at Wikimanias and meetups. He is a nice guy and really dedicated to our mission. But no statement and no actions in the last year does satisfy our definition of inactivity. If he comes back during the next election cycle, then I will vote for him. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No steward edits for over a year? Remove. TheHelpfulOne 15:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These positions really should not be a gold watch and I feel that SJ came close to abusing our trust (although he was probably just being unrealistic with himself) by saying he'd make an effort to be more active. Thanks for all you've done and there's no shame in becoming inactive. But it's now more than a year past time to remove. --JayHenry 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove, but I understand there are more important things than being online every day ;) →Na·gy 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

another dedicated, trusted, inactive user who is prone to overcommitting himself :) SJ has been involved in Wikimedia for a long time and certainly has done much work here; my statement about Oscar, above, applies. -- phoebe 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove not interested whatsoever in the steward role, therefore should not have it, probably should not have been given it in the first place fr33kmant - c 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Formally active enough. Too significant to let him leave us as a steward. He didn't leave the statement, but it is so regular behavior of Sj. I may bet that he will write something as a statement during the last moments ;) --Millosh 13:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: The following services are provided by me: Handling of the requests at all requestpages on Meta [24] ([25], [26], [27], [28]), collaboration in the SWMT-area [29], provision and maintanance of an internationally frequently used FAQ-, help- and problem-solving-page [30].

A 100% support in her RfS is the reason we can safely say that she is the best steward we ever had. As a newbie she has proved and set a benchmark for other stewards (new and old) to follow and live up to. Go you good thing :) ..--Cometstyles 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The most active of the stewards. Also per scru. Prodegotalk 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:>)=| makes the rest of the stewards look like slackers, plus kind hearted, sage, and prudent. Now if we could only get her to stop capitalising You when it's not in the lead word position sentence wise she'd be perfect. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spacebirdy moar like Speedbirdy. I am sure she is a robot of some sort; she's just so fast and omnipresent, not to mention excellent. And You shush lar.--Shanel 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did think that spacebirdy was a she, but Firilacroco's statement confused me. Fixed. :) TheHelpfulOne 17:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what else should I add than Majorly's statement? Danke! —DerHexer(Talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

About as good as it can get in my view. I only really trust a small number of stewards & this one is pretty much top of the list. If anyone suggests removing Spacebirdy's flag the rest have no chance. --Herbytalk thyme 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Very very strong confirm she is always when we need help and she is very active. I can't imagine SRP or the SWMT whithout Spacebirdy. Muchas gracias por tu ayuda. —Dferg(meta-w:es:) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about maintining an international and frequently used help page is right on the mark. Possibly the most capable, active and helpful stewards we have. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to be inventive here when I say that Birdy has my utmost trust. Wojciech PędzichTalk 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe de-arbcom asked for Thogo to check something? That's just like Lar or anyone else CUing people on Commons or En-wiki when CUs are not available. miranda 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Having access to a log where no local users with that user right exist cannot be a COI. And dewiki doesn't have oversighters. If I had oversighted something it would be an issue, but I didn't, as any other steward can confirm. --Thogo(talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that 1. Thogo did never do any oversight action on de.wiki and that 2. all stewards have now log access to cu and os log on all wikis. Best regards, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Active in the SWMT-area, doing a great job as a steward, also helped a lot solving account-problems and in bug-finding when SULwas introduced, thanks, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Very active steward. Does a lot of good work. As every human makes mistakes, also a steward can. Please keep up the good work! Romaine 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He has been doing a really good job and that right change on dewiki his homewiki is fine because it related to the removal or private information which I'm told he never did as it was not necessary and the fact that the german wikipedia does not have local oversighters is something the local dewikipedians should discuss about appointing :) ..--Cometstyles 03:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thogo == gooth (technically) which is close enough to "good" for full marks. Seriously, that rights thing is overblown. Thogo is someone I'm always glad to see on IRC, I was consulting him about something just today, and his counsel is always wise. Stewards collaborate... I can think of few stewards I'd rather collaborate with than Thogo. Hard worker. Obvious keep. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

COI - I'm also up for confirmation. Thogo was very kind and helpful when I was trying to fix my global steward account. Seems to be on IRC often doing similar things for others. I say keep. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what should I add? We know us pretty well and I can't see a reason not to trust him. A very active, hard-working and nice friend. Keep, of course. Regards, —DerHexer(Talk) 12:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "Strong oppose: This guy, a mediocre, is driven solely by hatred. (Opinion given even though it's completely useless; this individual being an eminent member – and eminently representative – of the Family; now, I await the measures of retaliation, from his little comrades, which would be too long to cite.)" —translated by Pathoschild.

Taking a good look at that user's talk page [66] will plenty of good reason to just ignore his comments. DarkoNeko 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: Hi, I thought the least I could do was to say that I am still interested to continue to serve as steward. I do not claim to be very active as steward but I am active, and even more then it looks at first glance from the logs. If you have questions or remarks please ask. Greetings, --Walter 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support COI - I'm also up for confirmation. Not particularly active, but certainly not inactive per the policy definition. Walter has shown he is trustworthy and wants to stay on. I say keep as steward. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel Mayer. Activity is good, it's important, but so is good counsel. I trust Walter and am glad to hear his opinion on matters that come up on the steward mailing list. Keep. ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At that time, 정안영민, a bureaucrat on kowp was active. he processed usurpation request on September 16, 2008, same date of wpedzich processed renaming request. In kowp, Using official requestboard is desirable. because we didn't have consensus at time, 정안영민 often deferred processing. 정안영민 stated on ko:위키백과토론:계정 이름 변경 요청 "제가 계속 계정명 변경 신청을 받고는 있습니다만, 명시된 기준도 없이 제 마음대로 처리하려니 고민이 많습니다." (I'm receiving rename request, but I'm agonied to process at my convenience because we have no clear rule.) but in this case, we didn't receive official request but private request. I think this happening was undesirable.--Kwj2772 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should not have renamed, but IMHO this is not a reason to remove him as steward, please have a look at this huge rename requests from only one user. He had been advised several times before not to use different names on each wiki, but he did not listen, when sul was introduced he changed his mind and asked for these massive number of accounts. The user was quite present in the IRC channels and while the request was on wiki anyway he pinged several people to get his requst done, and obviously Wpedzich did not check for local bureaucrat activity or clicked the wrong line. I don't think he should be removed for that, but it should be a constructive critc. Imho his other work as a steward is good and I would plead for confirm, best regards, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for explaining this situation to me. I agree with Spacebirdy here - this is a mistake which should be avoided in the future, but not a reason to remove from stewardship. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A lesson to be learnt for sure - I had a feeling the name changes were being waited on long enough, and the local bureaucrats, although existent, were hard to reach in my opinion, therefore my decision. As I said, a lesson for me. Thanks for the criticism. Wojciech PędzichTalk 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal info: I am steward since 2005, and admin on several projects. I am also check user on Commons. I am a founding member of Wikimedia France. I am still interested by stewardship. Even if I am not very active, I am always available via IRC to answer to urgent requests.

Confirm. What statement was not left?--Jusjih 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't seen you doing steward tasks in recent memory. I'm afraid I don't find you to be particularly available on IRC either. You may be doing other things, but the steward tools are meant to be used. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

When did you see that I am not available on IRC? I have been almost every day for the last two years. Yann 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, I've always seen Yann available and helpful for every people.---Zyephyrus 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove. Should have been removed last year. I think stewardship requires a high degree of trust and having been desysopped by the frwiki ArbCom for misusing his admin access on that project is not the sort of thing I'd expect from a steward. WJBscribe(talk) 01:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the political conflicts on the French Wikipedia relate to stewardship. Regards, Yann 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support to confirm, -jkb- 13:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) - - - Reasons (added): I know Yann since about 2005 from the Oldwikisource, 2006 he helped me to present the Czech subdomain. Since then I know him like somebody who takes his wikijob very engaged and who act very helpfully after thinking about a problem. When somebody is missing dozens of activities every hour, so maybe this is the reason: he acts only when it is necessary. And, the Wikisources need him as a colleague in the steward team. -jkb- 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong support. Experienced, skilled, available and active. The fr.wiki issue is complex and political, and Yann can not be defined by it. He was a good steward before hand, and active in many other projects, trusted with sysop on many more, and frwikisource is now his home wiki. John Vandenberg 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Plenty of activity as recent as December and on IRC very often (although, not chatting too much but then, most chatting on the IRC channel is not really related to steward tasks). Yann has been around for some time now and has proven to me to be trustworthy. Definite keep for me. COI - I'm also up for confirmation. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support been very supportive of newbies and encourages people to learn and step-up. Stewardship is more than just using tools as a first resort. -- billinghurst 10:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove very little activity in the rights arena during the last year, seems uninterested fr33kmant - c 04:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About 85 right changes since the elections and most self and mostly for doing something a local admin would have done themselves..shows lack of knowledge of the steward policies ...--Cometstyles 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove - The most recent rights changes are appropriate, however the initial (and ongoing for quite some time) inappropriate rights changes in addition to other issues such as those birdy points out... it's just not confidence inspiring. I don't see abuses here, but that's the bare minimum - stewards should be held to a higher standard than the bare minimum. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this was an inappropriate action. Zirland acted following the Slovak Wikipedia policy on inactive sysops and the user's talk page. On the other hand, some official request for this would be more transparent for other users. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the logs I'd say remove here, very few rights changes and in the beginning even to have only insight in deletion logs and the last one was a right change on an user who did not even ask to be bot [68], I did not see a request anywhere either; Prskavka@skwiki no request for this removal either; global indefinit block? Sorry, but I think that Zirland never really started working fully in that area and therefore he imho seems not to be familiar with the policies and practices, he seems not interested either, because there is no statement, best regards, --birdygeimfyglið(:> )=| 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)